Seems Hillary is taking the “scenic route” for this election…
September 10, 2008 by PUMA Pundit
There we have it, while Hillary (and Bill) are still stumping for Obama, their efforts are focused on what is really important; electing down-ticket Dems into other state and national offices.
This is obviously bad news for B. Hussein Obama as Hillary would have been a perfect Vice-President anti-Palin campaigner for him. It isn’t a secret that Hillary is a strong, resolute woman who has the love, admiration and support of millions of middle America voters out there.
Here are a few excerpts from the New York Observer story on this very issue:
With the McCain campaign running tactical circles every day around the Obama outfit—which has failed, somewhat unbelievably, to come up with even a semi-compelling response to the Palin selection—one might think Mrs. Clinton, to say nothing of her sidelined husband, would be a useful surrogate on the counterattack right about now. Apparently, the Obama campaign does not agree.
“My concern is that I see them as totally reactive right now as opposed to getting out there on their own and saying what the hell they are about,” said Leon Panetta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton who has advised Mr. Obama. “They seem to be intimidated by the Palin pick. They seem to be intimidated by how the Republicans are coming at them on change. And you cannot win if you are constantly on defense.”
The exact same strategy Obama used to sideline Hillary in the primaries is what is failing so woefully against McCain/Palin. In the Democratic Party, the powers that be turned a blind eye to Obama’s shenanigans, thereby allowing him to get away with a whole lot of stuff, and handing him the nomination on a virtual golden platter. Alas, he’s in the big leagues now, and Reid, Dean and Pelosi (to name a few) are completely out of their depth. The only forces in the democratic party that can save him are Hillary (and Bill Clinton), and to call on them in his hour of need would merely show that Obama should never have been the nominee in the first place.
Ha! Karma is a wonderful thing, is it not?
Posted by AD76
That is because Hillary, as we all know. is more astute and saavy about the real issues.. Obama is fluff… a marketing program…
It would be a big disappointment if Hillary cavedin and threw away her career for this junior politican … I don’t think she will because she knows it would end her career now and in 2012 and in 2016!
Sarah 2008… Hillary 2012 Pass the word!!
Yes, yes, Obama’ s middle name is Hussein. We get it.
There are lot of differences between you and Hilary Clinton. Hilary Clinton is smart, Hilary Clinton is eloquent, Hilary Clinton is not a bigot.
aha - a bigot - really?
First I’m a racist and now WasHRCnowPalin is a bigot - alway the race card - don’t you have anything else to fall back on?
You have no idea who WasHRCnowPalin is or I - yet - because we are not supporting your chosen one we are now bigots and racist?
Is that what that celbutard on the other post - you know the sex addict from England who talked about fondling Palin -said about American that won’t vote for him - we are all racists.
Just keep them coming and watch the polls keep sliding for Barack - and yes that’s his middle name Hussein (is he ashamed to use it) Obama.
I’ll say it more politically correct - your Homo Politicus (look it up) is going down!
I’ll help you out:
A name for this species would be Homo Politicus (”Political man”) because modern humans often don’t behave very wisely (i.e. intelligently) but are very social instead.
How about I help YOU out, Sparky. Continuously pointing out Barak Obama’s middle name is a sorry attempt to link him with Islam. People in this country have a knee-jerk reaction to people of the Muslim faith. I would hope that the moderator of this blog (a supposed Hilary Clinton supporter) would be above a scare-tactic usually reserved for the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.So, either the authors of these posts are (not so) slyly trying to scare people OR she some kind of problem with people of the Muslim faith.
And thanks for the Latin and Google lesson. Big words make you seem kinda smart, don’t they?
Smart and factual as opposed to you who is ignorant of the facts and live in “la la land”.
You sun is obama and you revolve around him. He can do no wrong. You are a weak person who truly can not thing for yourself but would rather support someone that tells you everything you want to hear.
If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
Oh and by the way - that is his middle name - sorry I didn’t marry the muslim from Africa that dumped me and moved on to 10 other women and even though he went to Harvard (the father by the way- and didn’t finish) - he still has children living out of cardboard boxes earning $12 a week.
By the way, Obama’s mother did record him down as Muslim at his school in Indonesia - I suppose that was my fault as well.
Typical Obamamaniac always, always blaming other people for Obama’s empairmennts.
aha you are getting weaker by the moment - I can smell the fear from here.
Correction below:
Your sun is obama and you revolve around him. He can do no wrong. You are a weak person who truly can not think for yourself but would rather support someone that tells you everything you want to hear.
Obama’s Socialist Relationships
With Obama’s big wins last night,it’s time to look at how radical Obama really is.He might not have a big voting record,but Obama sure has interacted with some real radicals.The mainstream media might refer to Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson as liberal when in fact he’s a leader of the Democratic Socialists of America.The liberal media also refers to Gloria Steinem,Cornel West,and Barbara Ehrenreich as “liberals” when in fact they also are actually socialist leaders.
The Democratic Socialists of America(DSA) is America largest socialist organization with an easy to understand goal.Here’s a quote from their website:
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit
So,what’s Barack Obama’s relationship with an organization like the DSA?
The DSA has a Chicago branch called the highly original the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America.The Chicago branch has a publication called New Ground.Guess who’s name shows up in New Ground? Barack Obama.Let’s
Notice the DSA connections in italics,notice panelist Barack Obama.It appears the socialist style conference wasn’t there to debate whether Milton Friedman was more important to economics than Ronald Coase.But,in the very same issue of New Ground Barack Obama’s name comes up again under :”Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election” only a few politicians got mentioned for endorsement:
Barack Obama is running to gain the Democratic ballot line for Illinois Senate 13th District. The 13th District is Alice Palmer’s old district, encompassing parts of Hyde Park and South Shore.
Mr. Obama graduated from Columbia University and promptly went into community organizing for the Developing Communities Project in Roseland and Altgeld Gardens on the far south side of Chicago. He went on to Harvard University, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated with a law degree. In 1992, he was Director of Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration campaign that made Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the U.S. Senate much easier than it would have been. At present, he practices law in Judson Miner’s law firm and is President of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant which is distributing some $50 million in grants to public school reform efforts.
What best characterizes Barack Obama is a quote from an article in Illinois Issues, a retrospective look at his experience as a community organizer while he was completing his degree at Harvard:
“… community organizations and organizers are hampered by their own dogmas about the style and substance of organizing. Most practice … a ‘consumer advocacy’ approach, with a focus on wrestling services and resources from outside powers that be. Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities.” (Illinois issues, September, 1988)
Luckily, Mr. Obama does not have any opposition in the primary. His opponents have all dropped out or were ruled off the ballot. But if you would like to contribute to his campaign, make the check payable to Friends of Barack Obama, 2154 E. 71st, Chicago, IL 60649. If you would like to become involved in his campaign, call the headquarters at (312) 363-1996.
Sparky, do you ever post anything that isn’t either completely copied from another website? I think Google is more than your friend. It is your beloved.
Although, I can see why you lift other people’s words. When you post in your own words, you say the same thing over and over and over again.
I can’t even begin to comprehend your tirade on Obama’s mother and father. Really, it just doesn’t make any sense. What does any of that have to do with the Limbaugh-Coulterseque scare tactics of repeatedly using Obama’s middle name?
Are you on some kind of pain killer, maybe? An hallucinogen? Are you seeing socialists under your bed? Don’t worry, they won’t hurt you, they just want to give you free health care at the tax payers’ expennnnnnnssssssse. Boooooo!
Ah, I wish we could edit our posts. I added an “either” where it doesn’t belong.
aha,
I am wondering if you have anything substantive to offer to this conversation? I mean Sparky has provided a lot of meat to chew on. Why don’t you address those items instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks…
…oh, I forgot, that is what Obama does and you are just following his lead.
Your man is going down and fast… even Biden is saying Obama’s judgment call on VP choice was not the best person… exactly what we have been saying here along… if your own VP hopful is saying that why can’t you admit yourself? Obama is a performer… there is nothing of substance in the community organizer’s portfolio of ideas.. just tired old socialist ideas mulling around in his head since college.
Unlike Sarah who is a person like us.
Go Sarah 2008!! Hillary 2012!!
so my understanding of socialist is having the government provide it’s citizens with a service. so government can be comprised of federal, state, county, city. what’s a socialist program that us citizens currently participate in? how do firefighters, police officers, and teachers get paid? through city, county, state, federal taxes. i think you are saying that obama wanting universial health care is an example of him being a socialist? isn’t that a platform that hillary ran on as well? and why shouldn’t every taxpaying citizen be provided with healthcare? i’m sure you guys will correct me if i’m wrong
just like aha said, if you google hillary and socialist, crazy nut jobs accused her of the same thing just like they did obama. how is obama a socialst but not hillary? do you realize that people use buzz words to scare you?
do you know that the federal government provides us senators and us representatives with health care?
Redistribution of wealth is the crux of Obama’s socialist thinking…
..there are things that government does well and must do for its citizens.. you named a few…,there are other things that government does not and cannot do well… it si not designed to handle.
so i don’t understand…it’s ok for the government to stop your house from burning down, arrest people, teach our children, but not to provide healthcare?
also why was hillary not a socialist for wanting the same thing?
also so no one should fight for the poor people? just let the rich get richer and hope the poor people eventually die off? i don’t understand “Redistribution of wealth”? i don’t understand how this would be a hindrance to the wealthy?
why did the nut jobs accuse hillary of being a socialist?
Define wealthy Peach? Is it someone making $75K a year, $100K? $200?
I make around 130K a year - I work extremely hard for this salary and probably put in about 80 hours a week. I am taxed to death. by the time all the taxes are taken out and finish paying for one in college and putting another one in for the next 8 years why should I pay for everyone else as well.
I was a single mother, I put myself through school, worked full time and raised two kids. It wasn’t easy as a matter of fact it was probably one of my greatest challenge in life - I don’t even remember sleeping.
Why again should I give part of my paycheck away? Please explain - to make me feel better? I am already having around 30% taken out - should it go up even higher.
He is targeting anyone over $45K per year - let’s start there. It is called “income redistribution”
Oh and uhoh or whatever your name is - that was not cut and pasted.
GAPeach - why do you feel that you need to shove your views on other people if they are not wanted. Do you have socialistic tendencies and feel that people need to be spoonfed with the way the live their lives?
Let’s try this again:
GAPeach - why do you feel that you need to shove your views on other people if they are not wanted. Do you have socialistic tendencies and feel that people need to be spoonfed with the way they live their lives?
I want choice if I want to give to Charity - not because someone says I have to give my money away.
Oh, sure. I have nothing of substance to add. Sparky cuts and pastes right wing bloggers word-for-word. There is no actual critical thinking going on. Just parroting of republican talking points, which is frighteningly hilarious, considering you are all supposed to be Democrats and Hillary supporters. Sparky and every other PUMA I’ve heard from uses the same arguments against Obama with healthy doses of “you’re all drinking the kool aid” and “you’re just blindly following your messiah” and “oohhh, Obama’s middle name is Hussein (wink, wink).” If I didn’t know any better (and, come to think of it, I don’t) I would have though I’d stumbled into Freeperville or Rush Limbaugh’s Dittoland.
I’ve chewed on the “meat” Sparky has offered up (figuratively, of course, since I’m a vegetarian). It’s slanted, biased, and often blatantly wrong.
Sparky, don’t you see? HIllary and Obama had similar plans for taxes. Why do you support Hillary? She’s as “socialist” as Obama. She has basically the same take on social issues as Obama. Your own opinions on taxes are more in line with Bush and McCain. I really want to understand.
Is it just because Hillary is a woman?
aha, then make your case! Just refrain from ad hominem attacks against fellow bloggers…
The Truth on Taxes (Again)
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who was in the race himself earlier this year, banged the now-familiar tax drum in his denunciation of Obama when he said, “You don’t lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.”
We’ve been here before (repeatedly), but we’re happy to reiterate: What Obama is proposing is indeed a substantial tax increase for some, but not for most. OVERALL, OBAMA SAYS HE WOULD RAISE INCOME, CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDEND TAXES ONLY FOR TAXPAYERS WITH FAMILY INCOME ABOVE $250,000 OR SINGLES MAKING MORE THAN $200,000. He would also raise corporate taxes through selective “loophole closings.”
FOR MOST TAXPAYERS RATES WOULD GO DOWN. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has described his plan this way:
TAX POLICY CENTER: THE OBAMA PLAN WOULD REDUCE TAXES FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES, BUT RAISE THEM SIGNIFICANTLY FOR HIGH-BRACKET TAXPAYERS. … BY 2012, MIDDLE-INCOME TAXPAYERS WOULD SEE THEIR AFTER-TAX INCOME RISE BY ABOUT 5 PERCENT, OR NEARLY $2,200 ANNUALLY. THOSE IN THE TOP 1 PERCENT WOULD FACE A $19,000 AVERAGE TAX INCREASE — A 1.5 PERCENT REDUCTION IN AFTER-TAX INCOME.
It’s true that Obama’s tax proposals overall would raise federal revenues by $627 billion over 10 years. Is that “one of the largest tax increases in American history” as Thompson claimed? And would it be a drag on the economy as he says?
When it comes to assessing the effect that a tax change will have on the economy, the single most relevant figure is the size of the increase or cut in relation to the size of the overall economy. And by that yardstick, Obama’s increase is hardly a history-maker. The largest was the 1942 increase enacted as the U.S. plunged into World War II, and it amounted to 5.2 percent of the entire economy in its first year.
President Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which Republicans regularly and misleadingly call the largest in history, was actually about one-tenth as large, amounting to 0.5 percent of the economy over its first two years. The TPC calculates that Obama’s overall tax increase, as described by his aides and on his Web site, would be roughly 0.1 percent in its first year, and 0.3 percent on average over 10 years, compared with what people are paying now.
aha, the differences between Obama and Hillary go WAY beyond the issues of taxes. Because Hillary is actually experienced she knows how things work… her husband Bill staffed some good folk as well. She knows this stuff.
Obama on the other hand is an executive wanna be, has never owned or managed a business, ……and Obama is a sexist.
yes aha. hillary had the same “socialist” ideas as obama and even edwards more so. and even though hillary and obama had the same ideas, the sparkster supported hillary because she is a woman. and there is nothing wrong with that (seriously). what i don’t understand is socialist being thrown around like it’s the end of society. when our current society has socialism in place that we use and benefit from. so if you come on this site and ask for an understanding of the name calling and rants you are told:
GAPeach - why do you feel that you need to shove your views on other people if they are not wanted. Do you have socialistic tendencies and feel that people need to be spoonfed with the way they live their lives?
GAPeach,
Obama bin Biden is a spend-o-maniac who will give money away for socialist programs and redistribution of wealth. The programs he would implement would cause taxation to reach the middle class…. working mothers, single mothers, women with businesses ,..
..besides he is a sexist. He passed over the best qualified person, a woman, and picked a VP hopeful mand that thinks he, Obama, made the wrong decision!!
Women rise up!! Do not accept DNC elite scraps under the table any longer… we want the prize!!! It’s time!!
Go Sarah!!! 2008 Go Hillary 2012!!
so if your husband is a brain surgeon, is his wife qualified to be a brain surgeon as well? did the clinton’s own a business? i read bill clinton’s book and i don’t recall bill clinton managing or owning a business. just examine how no one can answer why nut jobs called hillary a socialist.
and how much is this war costing the us? $12 billion a month. so that money could go to the socialist programs that are already in place (increase wages for firefighers, police, teachers).
GAPeach,
You give Hillary too little credit.. and your argument is a fallacy… we are not talking about brain surgery.
As far as giving money to police, firefigthers, and teachers we aren’t buying this fallacy either.. Obama wants to redistribute wealth amongst classes…
But you knew that already… and we knew you knew that.
why did the repubs call hillary a socialist?
Obama bin Biden, WasHRCnowPalin? Don’t you mean Obama bin Lyin?
For all of you that want a socialist redistribution of wealth, why don’t you move to France? Why do you want such a radical change of America, when socialism has not worked anywhere else? We love America, and don’t want to change to a socialist country. Let’s stimulate economic growth by taking the shackles off of business, rather than taxing business even more. As a small business owner, I can assure you that if Obamanation’s plan goes into effect, to tax business more and redistribute the wealth, I will not be able to hire more employees, and will in fact have to lay off employees. How is that better for our economy?
here is some trash i found about hillary. what i noticed is that it’s the same argument that you guys use against obama. but a year earlier the same repubs that you post articles from used the exact words against hillary when she was in the primaries. and now those same repubs are using the same argument against obama. so whats the basis for this?
I think in uminced words that Hillary is a socialist, power hungry bitch who will ruin our economy by redistributing the wealth and kill individuism and in turn our freedom in which our brave died for.I think she needs to wake up and read our Declaration of Independence and take a trip to Arlington and look at the graves of valor. God help our nation if she is elected and if she is I am sure people will take up arms. This may be war against those who want freedom and those who are socialist especially if she takes power as a dictator and enforce her brand of marxism. I love my country but I will hate Hillary and will lose respect for the office of the president if she is elected. There is already sucessionist movements in several states and with her election it will give these movements more backbone. Also, what bugs me is the mainstream media protraying her as a conquering hero so the media is also socialist. GOD SAVE OUR NATION!!!
more trash. please explain.
At risk of being labeled some sort of a neo-McCarthyite I wanted to point out this, because it is downright scary. Calling this woman a socialist isn’t hyperbole, it’s fact. Pure and simple.
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
This sounds remarkably like…Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):
In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
The problem with people like Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx, who envision for the world a utopia where a central authority takes wealth from the many and redistributes it according to the whims and principles of a few (well intentioned or not), is that it requires us all to put all of our faith and wealth into the government. Which is a bad thing because the more power government gets the more corrupt and oppressive it tends to become. Socialism has an awful history when it comes to well-meaning revolutionaries setting up a centrally-controlled government and economy only to find themselves oppressed by the people they appointed or elected to run it. Even here in America, the birthplace of democracy, we find time and again politicians with too much power abusing that power either to enrich themselves and their friends or punish their enemies.
Giving government more power than is absolutely necessary is folly. It is the road to tyranny and oppression at the hands of greedy government bureaucrats and it must be avoided at any cost.
Yet here’s Hillary telling us that we should abandon individuality, abandon self-reliance, and become more dependent on the government. She’s calling this “shared prosperity,” which means that she’s going to take some of your prosperity and force you to share it with your neighbor, who maybe isn’t even working to create his/her own prosperity.
I wish Hillary and the rest of her big-government liberal colleagues would re-read the Declaration of Independence and note that the founders’ intent in establishing this country was to grant our citizens a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” No one is guaranteed happiness, but simply the freedom to pursue it. But that’s not what Hillary wants. She wants to try and guarantee everyone in the country happiness, and she’s will to go bankrupt spending your tax dollars to do it.
GAPeach,
What does this have to do with Obama being a socialist and a sexist?
If you define Obama as a socialist based on his politics, then you are defining Hillary as the same based on her hers.
OK, now I get it. The whole reason I came to this blog was because I was completely confused by the PUMA mission. But, now I understand.
You never agreed with Hillary Clinton’s policies on taxes or social programs or anything of the sort. You only supported her because she is a woman.
You seem to be much more ideologically in line with McCain and Palin, regardless of their genders. You spout republican talking points with the best of them, including (as I’ve mentioned), the scare tactics of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, true friends of Hillary, I’m sure. The level of understand regarding how Obama plans to (and how Hillary planned to) alter the tax system doesn’t rise beyond the sound bytes provided by a 30 second McCain ad. I’m not going to go into the increasing wealth gap, corporate welfare and bailouts, and how the uber rich love to get the middle and upper-middle class all up in arms and then sedated by a measly 600-1200 dollar “tax break while they get thousands and thousands of dollars back laugh it up, etc., because I don’t think I’m going to change your mind.
Everything I’ve seen from PUMAs (including that shameful exchange between a crazy ranting womand and that schmuck Chris Matthews outside of the RNC convention and some truly embarrassing stint by a PUMA-like woman on Larry King) proves my point. And you are just supporting it even further by your continued, immature reference to Obama’s middle name. And, Obama bin Biden? Really? What is this, the election for student body president?
Again, you don’t seem to really agree with Hillary Clinton’s political stances. Certainly not on taxes and funding of social programs. Maybe on education and women’s issues (but then you go and vote for McCain-Palin?) My personal feeling is that voting for someone just because she is a woman is in its own way as sexist as not voting for someone just because she is a woman. I think NOW and Gloria Steinem feel the same way.
So, you will vote for McCain and his “soul mate” Palin. After all, they are heartily endorsed by George Bush and Dick Cheney. I guess you’re pretty happy with the way things have been going over the last eight years.
thank you aha
did you notice how there was no answer for why repubs called hillary a socialist. nothing…nada. still no answer. just buzzwords being thrown around. that’s what happens when you get your infomation off of biased blogs. stick to national news. if the page only shows you links to mccain it’s biased. if the page shows what’s happening in the nation then it’s a much better source. i don’t think this group ever knew any of hillary political policies.
if a woman is strong and speaks for herself she is called a bitch. if a man speaks against a woman he is called sexist. look up this video.
Prominent Clinton supporter slams Palin, says she’s not qualified
Posted: 07:25 AM ET
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
Carville: City hall of town where Palin was mayor looks like a southern Louisiana bait shop.
(CNN) – James Carville, one of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s most ardent supporters, wanted to see a woman in the White House — but not just any woman will do.
On CNN’s Larry King Live Monday night, the Democratic strategist — now a supporter of Sen. Obama — took issue with Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee.
“The question is why would she be running for vice president. I mean, this woman is almost absent qualifications for the job,” Carville told King, during an appearance with Rep. Michele Bachman, a Republican from Minnesota who supports Sen. McCain.
“She easily has more qualifications than Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden put together, if you look at executive experience,” responded Bachman. “She’s been in a executive position for two years. . . this is a woman who’s delivered and she knows how to get things done.”
“They tout her experience as mayor of this town in Alaska,” said Carville. “This is the picture of the City Hall. It looks like a bait shop in South Louisiana,” the Baton Rouge native said. “This is executive experience to be Vice President of the United States, to be a heart beat away from the presidency, to have to take over the country when we’re fighting three wars, when we’re having the biggest credit crisis we’ve had in this country?”
When Bachman suggested that Carville’s criticism smacked of sexism, Carville fired back. “Congresswoman, I don’t know how to tell you this, but I supported a woman for President of the United States.”
Aha you were confused well before coming to this PUMA website.
This should also drive the both of you nuts - or should I say even more nuttier than you already are - since I am Googling it and reviewing the responses this is what I agree - in my opinion - with:
Only two areas showed substantive differences between the two candidates: healthcare and the approach to Cuba’s new leadership. The conversation over their respective healthcare plans took up a large part of the debate, with both candidates resisting attempts by the moderators from the cable channel CNN to move the debate on. However, the differences between the two plans would have left most viewers, and voters, bemused.
The two candidates did however offer differing positions on their approach to Cuba’s new leadership. Asked if they would be prepared to meet with the island’s new leadership, the two echoed earlier positions.
Clinton made clear that she would set preconditions for any meeting, saying: “As president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change.”
Obama, however, stuck to his previous position that he would talk to foes as well as allies, arguing that the change of leadership in Cuba offered an unprecedented opportunity.
“We now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United States and Cuba after over half a century. I would meet without preconditions,” he said.
The two were also asked how they would cope with John McCain as their opponent in the November general election. Obama said that his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq would give him an advantage.
“It is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to invading Iraq in the first place,” he said. He also claimed that his votes against the war showed that he had the ability to make decisions as commander in chief.
“In the single most important decision of our generation, the war in Iraq, I think I showed the judgment of a commander in chief and I think Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgment,” he said.
The two candidates now face one final debate, in Ohio next Tuesday, before the critical Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4.
On an additional not, the Surge did work - Obama admitted this on Bill O’Reilly’s the other night - I know the two of you only listen to MessNBC - you know form those two talking heads that were demoted.
They are reducing soldiers in February of 2009 by 8000 and they will not be returning.
I know RottenPeach and OhNo just want us to lose the war and don’t care about the importance of succeeding - they are just like their messiah - they want failure for the United States for their own agenda.
McCain stated Country first - you say “what ever Obama wants”.
Some people are leaders - some are followers and some just do nothing at all.
Obama does nothing at all and you follow - what does that say about you…oh yes - you contribute nothing to society.
nothing in there about socialism. still no answer on why the repubs called hillary a socialist.
GAPeach,
Ask the repubs!
another no answer. so why did the repubs call hillary a socialist? also go check out the video of mccain calling hillary a pig with lipstick. HA!
Sparky,
You’ve basically made my point for me. The only real differences between the two candidates that emerged in that debate were their take on 1) healthcare (and the debate revealed the differences were marginal) and 2) Cuba. No difference in taxes. No differences in social programs. No differences in other economic issues. So, if you see Obama as a socialist then you must see Hillary the same way.
Now, there are a couple of other major differences between the two: their approach to Israel and their approach to the conflict in Iraq. When push comes to shove, I come down on the side of Obama on that. Of course, none of that has anything at all to do with whether or not either or both of them are socialist.
Now obviously you and I have different opinions about our presence in Iraq. But, Like so many republicans, you seem to see everything in black and white. “You’re either with us or against us.”
Now as to your personal attacks on me. You have absolutely no way of knowing how much I do or don’t “contribute to society”. You don’t know how much I am like or not like Hillary Clinton. You also assume a great deal about how confused I am and how nuts I am and how much I blindly follow Obama. Well I’ll let you in on something: I don’t blindly follow anyone, not Hillary, not Obama, and not McCain. And I certainly don’t blindly follow George Bush, no matter how much people try to tell me it’s unamerican.
I’m not in love with Obama as a candidate, but what he brings to the table is much more in line with my values and political opinions than John McCain and Sarah Palin. You see, I don’t vote with my heart or with my anger, I vote on the issues.
Interesting OhNo -you are under the assumption that I am a Republican. I’m a moderate. I’m in the middle. Just as you believe Obama share the same ideologies as yourself (I’ll refrain from commenting on that one), I don’t necessarily agree with any of the candidates on all the issues.
I have always respected Senator Clinton, I believe the woman is strong, highly intelligentand informative and above all has stamina.
She did not get elected. So I had to look at Senator McCAin and Obama.
Senator Obama has no experience and I believe has extreme socialistic values, in my opinion he is an empty suit that is only where he is today becasue the DNC pushed Hillary and her 18 million votes out of their way.
Now they have to live with it - and us PUMAs.
McCain I can live with - he will only be in office for four years, he has stronger credentials, he has “bucked” the system, he stands up for what he believes in and he has stamina.
He is a leader - I’m sorry, in my eyes (and 18 million other people’s eyes) Obama is not a leader.
Do I have to spell it out for you? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have virtually the same take on the issues. The article that you offered up as proof of their differences proved the exact opposite.
Anyone could make the mistake that you are a republican given your incessant parroting of republican talking points not to mention your reliance on right wing rhetoric to make your arguments.
You seem to value stamina above all else and that is certainly one of your own traits. I guess I don’t have much because you have truly worn me out. I have to slog through poorly written, often unintelligible essays for a living. I don’t need to do it in my free time.
Best wishes to you and your co-Executives at Very Large Firm, Inc.
Do you not read what was written or only the first sentences and then draw your own opinion.
OhNo -say it ain’t so - the party is just getting started.
I’ll send you a boo-hoo note when this is all over and your BOY hits the ground with a splat.
Hopefully, when he looks back on history and how he lost the race he can blame it on a pig with lipstick.
Would you like a slice of bacon to go on your exit out?
Sparky, I’m just a PhD, so I don’t have much experience reading and summarizing articles. But, I stand by my assessment.
I can’t leave just yet. I’m addicted to your cliches.
Just like I’m addicted to that Kool Aid that’s been poured down my throat (I beat you to it).
Anno Domini 76 - You cite Reed, Pelosi, and Dean as unable to deal with Obama’s alleged problems. This is a joke, right? Does Obama call Dean and ask him what he should do about a beehived and bespectacled lady from Alaska with a bunch of media fawning over her?
In ‘92 George Mitchell was the Senate Majority leader, Tom Foley was speaker of the House, and I have no idea who was DNC chair (props to you if you know). Did that powerful troika lead Bill Clinton to victory? Nope, Carville, Stephanopoulos, Bill, and Hillary (and other campaigners) did. So your blame for the hapless D leaders is misplaced, and perhaps relates to some previous grudge. But that’s a digression.
#1 Question: Why would any Hillary supporter not vote for Obama? After lots of reading here, I’m still waiting for an answer that doesn’t reduce to being a sore loser, or a rote reciter of Republican talking points.
I voted for Hillary in the WA caucus. I would be very interested in AD76’s (or anyone’s) version of how the “powers that be turned a blind eye to Obama’s shenanigans.” I agree caucuses are anti-democratic, but here in WA the local Dem party (the “powers that be”) are all for it. Changing the caucus system would take hard work, state by state. Kind of like how Obama won the nomination.